A frame for the development of preservice science teachers

This paper describes how a frame has been used to articulate the intentions of a preservice chemistry education course to students of that course. The frame, which draws on appropriate knowledge bases for teachers of science, is also used through the teaching of the course as a diagnostic and development tool to assist the learning of these preservice teachers. However, the success of using such a frame also relies on the use of reflective tools to monitor student learning, such as learning logs and portfolios. The paper also presents evaluations from students on the success of using this frame in this preservice chemistry teacher education course. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.2 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. Introduction Providing a frame for the development of preservice science teachers is not a new idea. However this paper describes how a frame has been used to articulate the intentions of a preservice secondary chemistry education course to students of that course, as well as ways this frame is used through the teaching of the course as a diagnostic and development tool to assist the learning of these preservice teachers. The frame used in this course assumes that knowledge, skills and attitudes are all important aspects in the growth of preservice science teachers. This paper focuses on the knowledge domain as the development of skills and attitudes has been detailed elsewhere (Corrigan, 2005). The use of learning logs and portfolios as reflective tools is highlighted as they have been critical elements in the application of this frame within the course. The paper concludes with some final implications for preservice science teacher development. Knowledge Domains for Teaching Science Certain key ideas appear to be necessary for the development of preservice teachers regardless of the structure of the program in which they participate. As suggested by Gess-Newsome (1999) these include the integration of knowledge bases, informed decision-making, exposure to examples of teaching excellence and multiple and supported experiences. Teaching practice and university courses are widely accepted as important ways of supporting and modelling excellent teaching. However, there has been more variation in the research on the interpretation of how teachers integrate knowledge bases and make decisions. Some of the important knowledge bases for teaching science and how these can assist in the development of preservice science teachers are discussed below. The knowledge base for science teachers will be different from that of, for example, history teachers, as Shulman (1999) suggests: ...teaching, like research, is domain-specific. This implied that teaching as “the transformation of understanding” rested on depth, quality and flexibility of content knowledge and on the capacity to generate powerful representations and reflections on that knowledge. (pxi) A number of different schemes have been proposed for articulating appropriate knowledge bases for science preservice teachers. For example, Tamir (1989) proposed six knowledge bases: subject matter, pedagogy, subject matter specific pedagogy, general liberal education, personal performance and foundations of teaching. From a different perspective, Koballa, Graber, Coleman & Kemp (1999) in an investigation of prospective chemistry teachers’ conception of the knowledge base Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.3 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. for teaching chemistry at the German Gymnasium proposed a nested structure for participants’ conceptions where the different layers may be viewed as differing levels of personal experience. In this model, Koballa et al. suggest that preservice chemistry teachers perceive school chemistry knowledge and university chemistry knowledge as nested within multi-dimensional knowledge, which is itself nested within learner-orientation multi-dimensional knowledge. They hypothesise that: The participants’ conceptions may represent different levels of personal experience that individuals accumulate when learning to teach chemistry. For example, it seems likely that prospective teachers experience university chemistry as important for chemistry teaching before considering knowledge of students or curriculum knowledge. (p283) Personal experience becomes an important dimension here as the way preservice chemistry teachers have experienced their chemistry knowledge at school and university influences the knowledge they use for teaching. In 1987 Shulman proposed seven domains of teacher knowledge which have contributed much to researching how knowledge bases are integrated by teachers and how they make decisions. The domains are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledge of learners, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values. There are obvious similarities between the knowledge bases provided in all these models, particularly Tamir’s and Shulman’s, despite their different perspectives. (Tamir and Shulman look at these knowledge bases from the view of the (science) teacher educator rather than from the perspective of Koballa et al., which takes the perspective of the preservice chemistry/science teacher). All three highlight the importance of knowledge of subject, while Tamir’s and Shulman’s models both additionally identify knowledge of pedagogy, and subject specific pedagogy. Koballa et al.’s model highlights the importance of personal experience, but this may not count as category of knowledge, but rather a factor that influences knowledge. Importantly, all these models support the notion that successful science teachers require knowledge beyond the level of subject matter alone. While Shulman’s and Tamir’s models clearly identify both pedagogical knowledge and subject specific pedagogy, or as Shulman terms it, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), as important domains of knowledge, Morine-Dershimer and Kent (1999), in a discussion about the source of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and PCK, present facets of pedagogical knowledge that are essential to its development and also the relationship between Shulman’s seven knowledge domains. This is reproduced in Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.4 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. a modified version in Figure 1 where Morine-Dershimer and Kent’s (1999) notions of facets of pedagogical knowledge and PCK have been combined into a single figure. The arrow linking these two diagrams (shown as a much thicker arrow) has been provided by the author, and while clearly providing a linkage between these two models, it also serves to emphasise the complex nature of these models. While Morine-Dershimer and Kent propose that context specific pedagogical knowledge is a precursor to pedagogical knowledge, this does not mean that pedagogical knowledge will be developed, and so the arrow representation is quite complex. For example, classroom management, instructional models and strategies and classroom communication and discourse all need to pay attention to educational goalsand assessment and evaluation as well as learners as important aspects of pedagogical practice. Morine-Dershimer and Kent (1999) suggest that it is the development of “context specific pedagogical knowledge that helps to guide teachers’ decisions and actions” (1999, p23) and provide the contextual basis for preservice science teachers’ consideration of educational goals and evaluation and knowledge of learners, which are important precursors in the development of pedagogical knowledge. For science teachers, considerations of these domains (pedagogical knowledge, educational goals, purposes, values and evaluation and knowledge of learners and learning) are also critical aspects in the development of PCK. As Morine-Deshimer and Kent(1999) note there are three important points to note in this model: • knowledge of educational ends and purposes is inseparable from knowledge about evaluation and assessment procedures; • curriculum knowledge is fed by both content knowledge and knowledge of goals/assessment procedures, while pedagogical knowledge is fed by both knowledge of learners and learning and knowledge of goals/assessment procedures; and • only the category of general educational contexts is further delineated to the sub-category of knowledge of specific contexts, but each of the other categories contributing to pedagogical content knowledge can be so delineated eg knowledge of specific content, specific curriculum, specific goals/assessment procedures, specific pedagogy, and specific learners (p24). Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.5 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. Figure 1: Modified version of 2 models proposed by Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999. Figure 1: Facets of pedagogical knowledge Figure 2: Categories contributing to Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999:p23) (Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999:p22) Pedagogical Knowledge Assessment Procedures, Evaluation of Outcomes Educational Ends, Goals, Purposes, and Values Curriculum Knowledge Knowledge of Learners and Learning Pedagogical Content Knowledge Content Knowledge Knowledge of Specific Contexts Instructional Models and Strategies Classroom Management and Organization Classroom Communication and Discourse General pedagogical Knowledge Reflection Context Specific Pedagogical Knowledge Personal Pedagogical Knowledge Personal Practical Experience Personal Beliefs/ Perceptions Knowledge of General Educational Contexts Modified by author Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.6 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. Understanding the Facets of Pedagogical Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge On first inspection it would be easy to view the facets of the pedagogical knowledge model as hierarchical with classroom management and organisation, instructional models and strategies and classroom communication and discourse being conceived as the development of technical aspects demonstrated by behaviour in the classroom. The model could also be viewed as a progressive continuum or a staged development in that it is necessary to acquire mastery of these three facets before a preservice teacher can “move on” in Furlong and Maynard’s terms. Furlong and Maynard (1995) support the notion of a staged development with pre-service teachers progressing from ‘personal survival’, to ‘dealing with difficulties’, to achieving confidence and competence in management and organisation, to eventually ‘moving on’ to pupil engagement. In this sense these facets can be viewed as being about practical competence. When pre-service teachers have not mastered these facets in their classrooms, they can often be judged to be weaker. In Furlong and Maynard’s stages of development, these preservice teachers are often operating at the lower stages (Stages 1-3; early idealism to personal survival to dealing with difficulties) as opposed to the higher stages of hitting a plateau (Stage 4, where preservice teachers look like teachers but lack understanding of teaching and learning) and moving on (Stage 5, where preservice teachers re-evaluate, plan and reflect in terms of pupil learning). Personal pedagogical knowledge, personal beliefs/perceptions and personal practical experience could be interpreted as being of higher order in terms of the students’ understanding of their own teaching; the development of a higher order cognitive dimension in teaching. Preservice teachers need to develop and integrate all of the facets in their pedagogical knowledge model in order to make progress. Classroom management and organisation, instructional models and strategies, and classroom communication and discourse have a significant cognitive dimension because as preservice teachers reflect on their personal beliefs/perceptions and personal practical experience and develop their personal pedagogical knowledge, they need to reframe these other three facets (classroom management and organisation, Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.7 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. instructional models and strategies and classroom communication and discourse) in generating general pedagogical knowledge. Reflecting on their understanding of classroom management and organisation, instructional models and strategies and classroom communication and discourse in developing general pedagogical knowledge influences their personal pedagogical knowledge. This feeds back into an increase in their teaching repertoire, developing their context specific pedagogical knowledge. There needs to be feedback loops between all of the facets, and reflection becomes the critical facet in this process of facilitating these feedback mechanisms. It therefore becomes a critical component of any preservice science teacher education course to build in the use of reflective tools in order to monitor and evaluate preservice science teacher’s development, as well as encouraging preservice teachers to self-monitor their own learning. Similarly, the development of pedagogical content knowledge requires an integrated view, where all the different categories feed into the development of such knowledge. It could be viewed that the two aspects of the refined model represented in Figure 1, where the facet of pedagogical knowledge are represented on the left-hand side and the categories of knowledge that assist in the development of PCK are located on the right-hand side, help to distinguish between teachers’ views of the “dailiness of teaching” as portrayed through the development of pedagogical knowledge and the more highly desirable professional development and “big picture” thinking portrayed through the development of PCK. For teachers, operating across all levels, but with increasing emphasis on the categories of knowledge located on the right-hand side of this figure would be desirable. Others have also attempted to delineate the nature of PCK. Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko, (1999) proposed that PCK was composed of five components: orientation towards science teaching, knowledge of the curriculum, knowledge of science assessment, knowledge of science learners, and knowledge of instructional strategies. Again the similarities can be seen with both the components proposed by Magnusson et al. and the categories and facets proposed by Morine-Dershimer and Kent (1999). Both highlight the importance of knowledge of assessment, learners, curriculum and instructional strategies. Magnusson et al.’s “orientation towards science teaching” differs slightly from Morine-Dershimer and Kent’s model in that it is about teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.8 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. particular grade level. Such knowledge and beliefs service as a conceptual road map that guides the instructional decisions a teacher makes about issues such as learning objectives, content of assignments, evaluation of student learning and the use of curriculum materials. This orientation towards teaching science does share some of the characteristics of what Morine-Dershimer and Kent have called knowledge of specific contexts. In introducing preservice teachers to the complexity of learning how to be effective science teachers, there are a great many discrete entities of which the preservice teacher needs to be aware. Preservice chemistry teachers, a small subset of the larger science preservice teacher group, at Monash University, Australia, undergo a program that has been framed around the models represented above. As Gess-Newsome (1999) suggests Good models, like good theories, organize knowledge in new ways, integrate previously disparate findings, suggest explanations, stimulate research and reveal new relationships (p3). The intention is that by making these ideas and intentions within a preservice science teacher education course explicit to the preservice teachers, they will take greater responsibility for their learning and development within these knowledge bases. Chemistry Education – An example of a preservice science teacher development course The chemistry education course for preservice chemistry teachers at Monash University, Australia, explicitly maps the intention of each aspect of the course using Shulman’s seven knowledge domains and in addition makes clear what skills and attitudes are intended to be developed throughout the course of study. In addition, preservice teachers are asked to track their own learning and experiences through the use of learning logs (Kortagen, 1993) and the development of chemistry teaching portfolios (Loughran & Corrigan, 1995) as well as demonstrate their learning through assignments and practical performances, and evaluate their own learning, skill development and clarification of attitudes and values as well as the explicit intentions of the program. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8, p.9 (June, 2007) Deborah CORRIGAN A frame for the development of preservice science teachers Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 8 (June, 2007). All Rights Reserved. Mapping of knowledge domains in the intended curriculum As stated above, the intended curriculum is mapped against Shulman’s seven knowledge domains. The mapped intentions of the course are communicated to preservice chemistry teachers in a variety of ways, predominantly in the course guide, as well as the mechanisms that are employed to track their learning. From this initial mapping of curriculum, articulation of intentions and tracking of learning, it became clear that there were areas that needed further development. Table I below summarises the mapping exercise and indicates the frequency of the intended development of each of Shulmans’ seven knowledge domains throughout the course. The heading used in this table are based on Shulamn’s seven knowledge domains and the frequency refers to the number of times when these knowledge domains were the purposeful intent of the teaching. This frequency table is based on the coursework component of the course and does not attempt to map the school experience component. It should be noted here that while there is also clear intentions and mapping of skills, attitudes and values developed throughout the course, these will not be detailed here but have been detailed elsewhere (Corrigan, 2005). Table I: Frequency for the intended development of each of Shulman’s 7 knowledge domains with the Chemistry Education course.